4 sisters returned to Italian father after their Australian Mum took them to Australia.....dragged kicking and screaming onto the plane.

[AmberLeaf]

Apparently the girls aged between 9-15 are dual citizens.

Link sorry its the DM.

Do they not take the childs view into account in Australia?

MaryZed - that is not true.

The Hague convention is simple in its concept and I don't see why it shouldn't be.

The principle is this: If a child is illegally removed from the country they reside in, the other (signatory) country agrees to return them.

Why does it have to evolve? And how would you like to see it evolve?

Which bit, Bonsoir?

If it becomes a free for all, obviously the person with more money/better lawyers/access to travel/ability to hide will win, won't they?

MaryZed, I agree on habitual residence being best positioned to decide but disagree on the reason. Before the Hague, these matters were decided on the basis of citizenship and many children never saw their foreign parent again. Children's interests were not a factor

Still that way in many countries. Japan is notorious. Really awful what they do there. Russia is another black sheep. Poland too, even though in theory they have the Hague.

Italy isn't exactly an unblemished Hague state. Look up the case of abducted Liam McCarthy, where Italian courts refused to return a child to a custodial father in the USA after also concluding the abducting mum was but sand putting Liam into an orphanage. Why? Because the dad turned to the media for help and this was deemed to render him unfit.

I see what LtEve is saying. We can't know what either of these parents is really like and what is truly motivating them, though the mother's actions in taking the children to Australia under false pretences was very wrong

Eldrich, thank you

Mary, You can't prove there is no abuse. You can't prove a negative. I haven't seen anywhere that there is any evidence of any abuse apart from the mother's word

And that is my point. There is no evidence either way. The only FACT is that the mother illegally took the children to Australia and they had to be returned under the Hague Convention. That is not disputed and she should be punished for that.

If it is proved that she purposely turned the children against their father she should be puished for that (although - can she be? I don't know how you would do that?)

But this thread turned into 'lets be as horrible as possible about some woman we think we know thanks to some internet sleuthing, dodgy translation, random links from unconnected cases and FB posts'

I don't see the need for it.

There is no EVIDENCE of abuse in the Jimmy Saville cases either, and never will be. But do we blindly assume that his victims are lying? I bloody hope not.

I know (sadly) far too many mothers residing in a country not of their choice where they have no work prospects (not even, necessarily, the country of origin of their husband) due to work constraints who have no money to leave their husbands unless they leave the country. If their husbands refuse to let them take their children, they have no choice but to abandon them - possibly even in a country in which the children have no relatives and no ties but their father. How is that a good thing?

work constraints of their husbands

I do see that point Bonsoir. The trouble is that there has to be some way of deciding these things. Would those children really be better off being taken away by their mothers and never seeing their fathers? What if it was the other way round, and only the mother could find work, the father has to stay to be near the children.

It's never ideal. But it has to be decided somewhere, and where the children live seems to me to be the fairest way.

The trouble of course is that extreme cases (generally) make bad laws.

"But this thread turned into 'lets be as horrible as possible about some woman we think we know thanks to some internet sleuthing, dodgy translation, random links from unconnected cases and FB posts' "

Well, gee...what's there left to talk about then?

Think it will rain tomorrow?

I just don't agree. I don't think that where a child lives has necessarily anything much to do with their well-being.

But how do you decide Bonsoir?

If a family habitually live somewhere, the children are settled in school, have friends etc.

And the parents split up. One parent is happy to stay where they are, keep the status quo for the children.

The other parent wants to take them away, thousands of miles away, to a country they may never have lived in.

How do you decide? There is no compromise here. Both parents are equally convinced their children will be happy with them and only them. You can't cut the children in two, you can't realistically say week and week about.

And I really don't like "mother is primary carer" as a reason, as in many families I know now the father would like to be the primary carer but can't because they have the higher earning capacity (and end up being punished effectively for it if they split up).

Obviously ideally they are decided on a case by case basis. But if both parents are adamant they are right, and one decides to take the law into their own hands and take the children, should they be rewarded for doing so by being allowed to keep them?

Well, gee...what's there left to talk about then

You enjoy slagging off people? Really? Is that ALL this thread is about for you? Having nothing else to talk about isn't actually something to be proud of you know...

Moving is no big deal. The point is the Hague Convention gives parents who wish to do so an easy way of manoeuvring their child(ren)'s other parent out of their life. I have seen it happen an awful lot. That's why it is rotten to the core.

Yes, but Bonsoir those mothers were foolish to marry foriengers and rely on male earnings. Never give up yhour career, out earn your man and marry someone from your own country and things go much better on the whole.

The Hague Convention is wonderful and it needs more not less support.

Also people have a look at the Reunite website which is useful on these matters.

www.reunite.org/
It gives the Hague country signatories here www.reunite.org/edit/files/International%20Agreements/Hague%20Convention%20Signatories.pdf

As you can see Japan is not on that list.

A very sad story of English children taken from Scotland by their Japanese mother is www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/families/article3373385.ece

Ah, so women who marry foreigners whose companies send them off to countries they have no choice over don't deserve protection from the law when their partners become abusive? An interesting take, Xenia.

Who is slagging anyone off? There was I, thinking we were having a debate & you, dallas start getting all gun-ho about our opinions.

We are allowed to voice our side, without being called women hating, being accused of slagging people off. If you don't want to participate without stopping to school yard tactics, don't participate at all.

And redsilk is right, if we can't talk about the mother/father/situation on this thread, what else IS there to talk about.

p.s, red...nope, don't think it will rain here!

The 'white trash' and 'trailer trash' comments upthread were all rather unnecessary.

I think that got some people's back up.

If talking about the law, why is one parent's supposed social background relevant?

different, thanks. And I think LtE didn't read my earlier posts or digest them. My family was put through one of these ordeals, which is why I (and rest of family) are more than a bit informed on the data and i do get interested in similar cases.

It's not about slagging off people but naming the fraudsters who would ruin their children's lives and who get way too much traction in their home country courts. Laura Garrett is a fraud. There's plenty if solid evidence of that. Her daughters aren't victims of the father's violence. If they were, they'd be afraid of him, instead of disobeying and acting out for the Australian press.

No rain here either, but I can't prove it didn't rain nearby.

Actually I agree with Bonsoir.
Issue with where the children live when parents are living abroad are difficult.

If let's say the father D is english but has found work in France. The Mother M is... let's say australian and has followed her DH to France. 2 years on, M finds out that D has been cheating and they decide to get divorced.
According to that law, because France is the 'residence' of the children, they should stay in France???

How is that right? France is NOT the country of the dcs. They might have some friends but equally, having lived there for a year or two, they might as well have more friends in their country of origin (which could be England or Australia in that case).

So you would have D who had to live in France, even though not his country but at least has a job.
M living in France, even though not her country and maybe(?) not able to get a job.
And the dcs who end up living in France.... even though it's not their 'home country'....

And what if D then decides to take up a job...in South Africa. Is the mum still expected to stay in France and not allowed to go back to Australia?

There is a need of a law that is much more 'personalized' to individual cases. It used to be that you had 2 parents from different nationalities living in one of the parents country. Not anymore. The Hague convention is like using a hammer to crack a nut. Working but also destroying a lot of things in the process.
In the best case, separated parents should be able to reach an agreement that would be OK for all concerned. But separated parents aren't always logical or willing to compromise....

Line Runner: agree wholeheartedly.

Redsilk: Her daughters aren't victims of the father's violence. If they were, they'd be afraid of him, instead of disobeying and acting out for the Australian press

Why have you assumed that their distress on boarding the plane is "disobeying and acting out" rather than them "being afraid of him" ?

It could easily be either, but automatically assuming they are disobedient rather than scared is a little 'off' I feel.

What makes you automatically go to the one assumption rather than the other? It's a glass half full / half empty scenario, where either could be right.

I did read your earlier posts, but your case isn't this case. Same as my abuser isn't this abuser. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt, you aren't. But unless you are actually invested in this case, you cannot KNOW. I can't either, so I'd rather not judge.

If the children are happy and well looked after then I don't care where they are or who they are with. Mum and Dad can fight it out in a boxing ring for all the good it will do. Right now there are 4 young girls, who have already been bereaved, and are now estranged from BOTH their parents. I thought it was AWFUL that the girls were further seperated for the flight, and it is DISGRACEFUL that they remained apart once in Italy.

I wonder if they would have been better off with a foster family in a neutral country whilst this is being sorted out. But then the last time they went into Foster care they had to be returned to mum due to concerns about their mental health and threats of suicide.

This is a very convoluted case, that could run on for years. Probably at the expense of the children.

Xenia in which case, no woman should ever accept to follow her DH if he is send to work abroad....

I am not sure there will be a lot of taker for these jobs now...
Or hold on, if that job is the ONE opportunity for the father to have a job, does it mean he also should refuse it and be on the doll instead? Or perhaps he should go away on his own and have a LT relationship with his dw? Or his wife should get divorce on the ground that... she should not be made to go and live abroad....

Come on, when people accept to go and live abroad, they do so because they think their relationship is strong. But in the years when they are away from 'home' things happen... and some of those is divorce.

Lady, it isn't that they would have to stay in France.

It's that the court case deciding where they should go would be held in France. It has to be somewhere - or else in your scenario you would have father trying to sneak them back to England, mother trying to sneak them back to Australia, both manipulating the children to choose between them and a right ruddy mess.

There has to be a law somehow to stop it being "whoever is prepared to behave in the most shitty way wins".

No, MaryZed, the court with jurisdiction would be in France and, if the father wished for his children to remain with him in France, that is what would happen.

Even though France is NOT the home country of the dcs...

Expat children quite often live life like this. Where they move from one country to the next every 3 years. Have contact only with the expat community, which changes all the time because they too will move on the live somewhere else.

So then what? The dcs have to stay in that country? And their mum too?
What if that country is one in the Middle East? And the mum can NOT find a job there or go out on her own? What if the dcs are all girls?

Would that be OK?

When I was growing up I knew two daughters who had been virtually kidnapped by their own father. Having manoeuvred their mother out of his and their life, he then moved country with his daughters. Frankly, the girls were miserable and traumatised. Their mother lived in very reduced circumstances in a country that was not her own. It was all very tragic.